nk09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) (08/25/90)
Hi -- I've been thinking about a contradiction that I've noticed in the the feminist movement. I'm sure that this has been discussed at length by feminists but as I'm no scholar of feminist theory I have not yet run across an acceptable resolution. Let me try to explain... As I see it, the major belief that feminists espouse is that men and women are physically different, but that these differences should in no way their relationships with each other, because (1) the physical differences tend to matter only slightly (e.g. maybe it would be thought that a hunter should be strong (ie, a man), but then again, maybe light-footed (ie, woman) hunters would have an advantages; each gender has its strengths and weaknesses with respect to hunting), and (2) even if the differences mattered, the differences *among* men and *among* women are large compared to the differences *between* men and women (e.g., you can always find a very tall women, a man with a very high-pitched voice, etc.). Psychological differences are another matter. Here, the differences are admitted to be great, due to societal pressure to for women to act "feminine" and men to act "masculine." Therefore, given some time and maybe some sort of direct action, it is hope that these pressures will dissipate, and the psychological differences will just disappear, since there was never any biological basis for them. In other words, today, men and women are difference but these differences are either unimportant, small, or unrelated to gender in a biological way. This all makes sense and I agree. However, I've also heard some feminist statements that contradict this. For example, the other day I heard a speech by Helen Coldicott saying (major paraphrase) that men cause wars because they just don't have the right maternal instincts, etc. If, she seems to think, men really cared about their children, their future, their friends, as much as women, they would see war as stupid and would never give it a second thought. Unfortunately, there are very few women in positions of power who could make "the women's position" known and thus wars go on. The solution, she says, is for women so seize control and set humankind back on the right course. I could go on about the details of the supposed differences but I think you see my point. So I hope you can see my concern: Which is it? Are men and women equivalent save those ways that societies bend us? Or are we really different, and are their feminists out there who believe that women's ways/beliefs/values/instincts are superior? I assume that there are different schools of thought in the feminist movement, and that some might agree more or less with either of these positions. But this contradiction seems quite startling to me, and I can see no way to straddle the fence. Me? I think that rationally the first model of gender makes more sense. The problem is that empirically, the second does seem reasonable. I of course keep telling myself that what I perceive as gender differences are just those nasty old results of societal pressures. Comments, questions and suggested reading are all welcome, either posted to this board or through private mail to me: kushmerick@andrew.cmu.edu -- Nick
morris@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Kate Morris) (08/25/90)
I recently read an article that helped me understand the differences in feminism. It's by Ann Snitnow, and appeared in Dissent magazine, Spring 89. The article is called "Pages from a Gender Diary", subtitled "Basic Divisions in Feminism". I'm not going to type it in, 'cos it'd take too long and I have a dissertation to finish. Briefly, it summarises the two basic tendencies in feminism: moving towards androgeny, and celebrating the ways in which women are different to men. This has been discussed for a long time: "minimizers" vs "maximisers"; "radical" vs "cultural" feminism, "essentialists" vs "social constructionists", American vs French feminists, and so on. Most of us agree with one side some of the time, and the other side at other times. Anyway, try and find it. It's worth reading. -Kate Morris morris@cs.stanford.edu
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (08/25/90)
----- Mr Kushmerick summarizes one version of feminism, the egalitarian view: > In other words, today, men and women are difference but these > differences are either unimportant, small, or unrelated to gender in a > biological way. But then he notes that there is another feminist line of thought: > .... For example, the other day I heard a speech by Helen Coldicott > saying (major paraphrase) that men cause wars because they just don't > have the right maternal instincts, etc. ... > > ... Which is it? Are men and women equivalent save those ways > that societies bend us? Or are we really different, and are their > feminists out there who believe that women's ways/beliefs/values/ > instincts are superior? I do not find it disturbing that there are two different schools of thought on this issue, since many movements encompass multiple and irreconciliable branches. What bothers me is that often the same writer or thinker relies on both of these conflicting ideas, choosing the one that is convenient to the political claim of the moment. If, for example, the innate psychological differences between men and women are so great that they explain the phenomenon of war, then they are certainly large enough to explain a gap in the success of the two genders in the business world. But when faced with the disparity in earnings between women and men, do those feminists who think that women speak with a "different voice" leave room for the possibility that this disparity in earnings is a natural result of it? No, they do not. Here, they insist that any difference is the result of unfair discrimination. Feh! You cannot have it both ways. If men and women are so similar that any statistical difference in professional success (dollars earned, presence in boardrooms, representation in certain fields, etc) is a sign of discrimination, then there is little sense in talking about women's values or their "different voice". If, on the other hand, one believes that women are significantly different from men in this way, then when one sees a statistical difference in the professional world, one has to ask whether this is caused by the underlying difference in thought between the two genders. (Indeed, many have noted that the traits required for sucess are the same in the boardroom and the war room. Helen Caldicott should note this.) Russell
BOYDJ%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (Jeff Boyd) (08/25/90)
Do you *need* a resolution to this question ? Given an answer, might you modify your behaviour in some way ? I wouldn't mine. No answer would change the way I feel I should treat other people. Dwelling on such questions suggests to me that there are people who wish to use gender as a criterion for putting certain people in certain places .
ROPERK%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (08/25/90)
Equivalence requires specification i.e. saying that men and women are equivalent *period* is incorrect. Men and women are equivalent for purposes of voting; they are not equivalent when it comes to heavy lifting, although a woman who can lift x kilograms is certainly equivalent to a man who lift x kg. The problem here is partly one of semantics (equality vs equivalence), but the hidden aspect is the propensity that people have to extrapolate the qualities of individuals to select groups of which they are members. It reduces the need to listen or think. I suspect that the most appropriate word here is "prejudice". One can justifiably believe that women would be less likely to instigate war in a gender reversed world, or even in one which would allow them to take a large share of power. HOWEVER, the point which is dutifully avoided by most of those people which I have heard espouse this view is that *attitudes toward women would have to change for this to become a possibility, and this may alter attitudes of individual women*. And given that this is extrapolation, this affects the assumed opinions of the group. Gotta love selectively dynamic systems and bad mathematics .... ------- Kim Roper B.Sc.Eng (Math. and Eng.) Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.ca Be nice to Queen's CS -- they pay my net.bills. If you want to abuse my department, you'll have to get in line behind me.
marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (08/28/90)
In article <90237.095518BOYDJ@QUCDN.BITNET> BOYDJ%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (Jeff Boyd) writes: >Do you *need* a resolution to this question ? Given an answer, might >you modify your behaviour in some way ? I wouldn't mine. No answer >would change the way I feel I should treat other people. The resolution of this question for me is important not to how I treat people but to how I donate money or cast votes. I would not vote for a supposed feminist (male or female) who says things that imply women are, actually, superior to men and if we women had been running things the world would be a much nicer, cozier, nurturing place. What crap. The only way to improve the world is to employ all the brain power on earth and use it to do a lot of very hard work. The world *might* be a better place if women had won equal rights from the beginning instead of at this late date - I'd like to think so - but this doesn't mean we are somehow better or even special. Who is subjugated doesn't really matter. Subjugation itself is what corrupts life and wastes brain power. -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
gazit%oberon.usc.edu@usc.edu (Hillel) (09/13/90)
In article <9009112047.AA09791@Arezzo.ORC.Olivetti.Com> jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes: >The archaeological digs in Europe mentioned in _The_ _Chalice_ and the >_Blade_, by Riane Eisler, and the way of life of the Native Americans, >indicates that it is possible to have a workable society that is not >based on success only for aggressive people. Why the examples of non-aggressive societies are always based on *old* societies that did not leave too many records behind? Why nobody presents a clear example, where there is enough data to know how the society *really* worked? >If a person says that success by brutal competition in business is the >"best" system solely because it can be, and has been, imposed by >force, then I reserve the right to use any force to fight against it. >Including AA, socialism, or anything else. The idea behind Affirmative Action is to put men in a situation where they have to try *harder*, while women can take it more easy. >If survival of the >survivor is the ONLY criterion, and morality doesn't enter into it, >then I have the right to lie, cheat, steal, and anything else to >change the system, as I am at war with it. No, you just reinforce the system in a more ugly way. >The way the world is going right now, it looks >(subjectively, to me) like the male of the species insists on brutal >competition. The way the world is going right now, it looks (subjectively, to me) like the female of the species insists that the male of the species will be in brutal competition. It is done by traditional women who look for success objects, and it is done by feminist women who try to create a situation (under a smoke screen of talking about "temporary" solutions) were men will have to try harder. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The continuation of earnings gap between men and women, the decimation of affirmative action in order to protect white men from `reverse discrimination', the rise of male victories in child custody cases - all of these attest to the need for a way to galvanize women's opposition and women's power in the 1980s." -- ("Caught Looking", Kate Ellis, Barbara O'Dair & Abby Tallmer)
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (09/13/90)
I wrote: >> If, for example, the innate psychological differences between men >> and women are so great that they explain the phenomenon of war, >> then they are certainly large enough to explain a gap in the >> success of the two genders in the business world. But when faced >> with the disparity in earnings between women and men, do those >> feminists who think that women speak with a "different voice" >> leave room for the possibility that this disparity in earnings is >> a natural result of it? No, they do not. Here, they insist that >> any difference is the result of unfair discrimination. >> >> Feh! You cannot have it both ways. ... I would like to amplify this a bit. There are many ethical stances that assume neither innate equality between the sexes, nor innate differences between them. A liberal in the classical mode might argue that we should root out unfair kinds of discrimination wherever we find them, but that we should be satisfied with what group differences remain after this is done. My critique was aimed primarily against those who argue both lines, choosing the one that is most convenient at the time. Ms. Parcel describes an ethical stance where neither assumption is made: In article <9009112047.AA09791@Arezzo.ORC.Olivetti.Com>, jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes: > I take it both ways for working purposes. Before flaming, let me > explain. > > I think there will turn out to be innate differences, when all the > socialization is stripped off. I hope these differences are smaller > than they appear now. ... > > I *hope* that most of women's apparently-natural peacefulness is > born of the experience of childraising ... > > I *hope* that a most of men's apparent will to dominate is a result > of a cultural paradigm requiring men to control women so they know > which kids are theirs. ... > > But, even if it turns out that some of this *is* inborn, IF THE > BUSINESS WORLD IS DESIGNED BY MEN FOR MEN, then it is likely designed > to optimize for male traits, and I OBJECT TO THIS. It *is* a form of > discrimination to create a world that witholds food and shelter and > freedom from those who do not match the traits of the group in > control. ... How one argues for something affects the particular results that one reaches. If one is seeking economic equality between the sexes, regardless of the source of inequality, then instead of anti-discrimination and affirmative action measures, one might lean toward more direct palliatives, such as a gender sensitive taxing scheme or other redistributive program. If Ms. Parcel is going to base her recommendations on egalitarianism, she also needs to consider the broader implications of this. Even more than the business world being "designed" by men for men, it is "designed" by smart, ambitious people for the benefit of smart, ambitious people. Despite the problems in measuring native intelligence, there is no doubt that some of us are born with more than our fair share, and others of us will never be able to do much more than menial work, regardless of educational opportunity. Should we seek economic equality between the smart and the slow? There is now quite a bit of evidence that depression and other non-cognitive mental traits are also inherited. It is plain that chronic depression can severely hamper one's business aspirations. Should we seek economic equality between the depressed and those with a normal emotional framework? For what differences in traits and abilities should a social system compensate? Is there any reason that those associated with gender should receive better treatment than others? What form should the compensation take and how far should it be extended? And finally, how much is one willing that all should suffer so that the desired equality is achieved? (In a social system, there is little difference between "encouraging" a kind of behavior "exploiting" it for the general good. As economists are fond of saying, one gets more of the kind of behavior that is rewarded, and less of the kind that is taxed.) Ms. Parcel does indeed escape the problem of determining whether gender differences are innate or cultural. But she trades it for a series of general social problems, some of which have plagued political philosophers for generations. Russell
nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (09/19/90)
In article <27088@usc.edu> gazit%oberon.usc.edu@usc.edu (Hillel) writes: >Why the examples of non-aggressive societies are always based on *old* >societies >that did not leave too many records behind? Why nobody presents a clear >example, where there is enough data to know how the society *really* worked? Partly because previous destroyers deliberately destroyed the records, partly because records may be less necessary in a society that doesn't collect tribute or taxes, and partly because when I was a kid we were taught as though such societies never existed, so even those few things which we *do* know for sure about them are enough to break the monopoly of the idea that our way is the only way. >>If a person says that success by brutal competition in business is the >>"best" system solely because it can be, and has been, imposed by >>force, then I reserve the right to use any force to fight against it. >>Including AA, socialism, or anything else. > >The idea behind Affirmative Action is to put men in a situation where >they have to try *harder*, while women can take it more easy. I was around in the sixties, when the idea was being discussed, and that's not what they said. You and I have both posted on this, and differ in our views, but I was not aware that you knew people who said this is their reason for promoting AA. Or are you claiming to be able to read others' minds? Anyway, my use of it here is not to support it (which I do in some cases and not in others, depending on implementation) but to point out that we need to agree on a definition of "fair and equitable" or "desireable" before we can decide what a fair or desireable world would would look like. In the absence of such consensus, each side will work for its own good, and each side will rightly point out that the other side is doing exactly that. Saying it is OK for the system of modern business to unconsciously select for male traits might be right or wrong, but it cannot be presumed to be a "natural" law in the sense of inevitability because there are other systems possible. >>If survival of the >>survivor is the ONLY criterion, and morality doesn't enter into it, >>then I have the right to lie, cheat, steal, and anything else to >>change the system, as I am at war with it. >No, you just reinforce the system in a more ugly way. Depends on whether or not critical mass is reached. Was Lenin reinforcing Monarchy? Anyway, I wasn't recommending this course of action, but pointing out that the mere existence of a system is not sufficient proof that it is good or desireable. As soon as other proofs are offered, they must be judged somehow, and that's where the fun starts. -- "Beware of prophets wearing rubber clothing" - William Nealy Miriam (bored with statistics) Nadel nadel@aerospace.aero.org